The objective of this portion of our conference on judicial reform is to discuss means to promote swift and fair resolution of disputes. Although much of our discussion will center on reform of basic court systems and civil procedure in various countries, my particular focus is on alternatives to traditional institutions and techniques. These alternatives include a variety of what we might call "courtannexed" procedures, that is, procedures that occur during the course of traditional litigation. I will also consider, however, other procedures that might better be characterized as purely "private" techniques for resolving disputes—those that occur before or at least without any special relation to litigation in court. The most traditional of these involve various forms of negotiation, including negotiations assisted by a third party, such as mediation. If successful, these procedures result in an agreement—a contract to be enforced by the courts if necessary like any other agreement. These private techniques also include arbitration, a procedure where the parties, either in advance, at the time of making a deal, or at the time a dispute arises, agree to resolve their dispute by giving it over for decision by a third party. Even though this is a "private'' procedure, because its essence is a binding final decision, enforcement may still be required; indeed, over the years various aspects of participation in the arbitration process and interaction with the courts with regard to compelling arbitration and enforcement of the third party's "award" have become regulated extensively by law, as well as by the rules of various agencies chosen to administer the arbitration.
Gray, Whitmore. "Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Experience in the United States." In Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: Proceedings of a World Bank Conference, edited by M. Rowat et al., 65-77. World Bank Technical Paper, no. 280. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1995.